About the time that Richard Thompson, head law guy at the Thomas More center and chief defender of the Dover Area School Board, started his third year of cross-examination of philosopher Barbara Forrest, it was easy to imagine that at that moment, everyone in the courtroom, including Forrest, who doesnt believe in God, was violating the separation of church and court by appealing to God for it to please, Lord, just stop.

It wouldnt have been so bad if there was a point to the ceaseless stream of questions from Thompson designed to elicit Lord knows what. Hed ask her the same question 18 different times, expecting, I guess, a different answer at some point. And he never got it.

Thompson, who said hes a former prosecutor, should have known better. Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and expert on the history of the intelligent design creationist movement, was a lot smarter than, say, some poor, dumb criminal defendant.

Here is a summation of Forrests testimony: She examined the history of the intelligent design movement and concluded that its simply another name for creationism. And what led her to that conclusion? The movement leaders own words. They started out with a religious proposition and sought to clothe it in science. The result was similar to putting a suit on your dog.

[anip]

Thompson was in the midst of asking Forrest whether she had heard a bunch of things that some people had said to indicate, well, to indicate whether shed heard a bunch of things that some people had said, I guess, when the topic came up.

Thompson asked whether she had ever heard a statement by some guy  frankly, this one caught me off-guard and I didnt catch the guys name  who said that belief in evolution can be used to justify cross-species sex.

This came on the same day that Thompson grilled Forrest about her opposition to the so-called Santorum amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that seemed to encourage, sort of, the teaching of intelligent design. Our U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is a friend of the intelligent design people.

He also has a strange obsession with bestiality, commenting that court decisions that uphold the right to privacy would lead to  naturally, and you know you were thinking it  man-on-dog sex.

Defense attorney Richard Thompson [he represents the school board] said differing opinions on whether teachers and administration worked in cooperation to create the Dover Area School Districts statement on intelligent design comes down to perspective.

The religious right should be fighting better battles than this one.(loud whisper----the euthanasia battle, as well as abortion) Although I believe in God and agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is only a theory--intelligent design is basically a faith question trying to pass itself off as science.

Thompson asked whether she had ever heard a statement by some guy  frankly, this one caught me off-guard and I didnt catch the guys name  who said that belief in evolution can be used to justify cross-species sex.

This isn't the first instance where the judge has indicated he thinks the Thomas More law center's attorneys are incompetent. I mean, bestiality? The great thing in a bench trial is the judge can let them waste their time without stopping them, as he would in a jury trial. And as long as they waste their time, they're not presenting material that would actually help their case...if there is anything that would help their case.

Dembski on his blog has already concluded Dover's probably going to lose. What he's hoping is that this will be a narrow decision; that the court will find that Dover erred without finding that ID is a form of creationism and therefore constitutionally excluded from public schools. Conversely, it looks like the ACLU is shooting for all the marbles. And they might well win them.

This isn't the first instance where the judge has indicated he thinks the Thomas More law center's attorneys are incompetent. I mean, bestiality?

You've got to figure that these type of people are used to dealing with a brainwashed congregation that drinks up that kind of kool-aid. Now, instead of being happy with their freedom of religion, they want to push taliban style fanaticism into science class and lose in court. It would seem that reasonable people in the religious community would call them on it but they sit silent even as the major advocates of the intelligent design hoax slink back into the shadows and wash their hands.

The editorial board of the Oracle, the student newspaper of the University of South Florida, wrote, Intelligent design is not just dressed up creationism. Those who dismiss the position undermine their own academic credibility. People who think dogma is only found in religion should think again.

Space aliens are certainly credible. The last sentence is true, however.

Based on some of the responses by evolutionists towards creationists and Christians it appears that the affront IS God. The vitriol directed towards those who profess fatih of any kind is very concerning. Post 10 is a good example. There are others if you peruse other creation/evolution threads.

19
posted on 10/07/2005 9:41:42 AM PDT
by metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)

One day they might come up with something that is bad science but sufficiently removed from religion to pass Constitutional muster. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says public schools must teach sound science, and it's not the place of the courts to decide science education policy.

That's why defeating intelligent design in court is not enough. We've got to fight them state by state, school district by school district.

20
posted on 10/07/2005 9:42:16 AM PDT
by curiosity
(Cronyism is not Conservative)

The vitriol directed towards those who profess fatih of any kind is very concerning.

Oh BS. Most pro-evolution Freepers are believing Christians, including me. Occaisionally some non-believer might make an intemperate remark, but these are usually directed only at young earth creationists (YECs), not Christians in genereal. Furthermore, such comments are seldom as nasty as YEC comments about non-believers. Heck, YECS aren't below be nasty toward their fellolw Christians who just happen disagree with their ultra-literalist interpretation of scripture.

21
posted on 10/07/2005 9:50:07 AM PDT
by curiosity
(Cronyism is not Conservative)

I'd love to see a step by step flowchart of the "logic" they use to infer that the ToE "justifies" the sexual perversion known as "zoophilia".

It's one thing for these creationists to always be preaching to the choir, so to speak. They'll always get agreement, support, and even praise for their arguments. (I assume even a nutcase like Jack Chick gets tons of adoring fan mail.) But when they get out into the rest of the world, they can find that folks look at them like they're stark raving bonkers.

No, it isn't...intelligent design is just that, the proposition that the evolutionary process was possibly assisted by an outside power. Taht power NEED not be god, Intelligent design attacks the dogmatic adherence to Darwinism, in the face of good questions. Darwinism is offered up as the answer to all questions. I for one, do not beleive for one moment in the 6 day creation, or any of the Old Testament stories of creation, I find it incredible, but on the other hand for Darwin to come along and close the door to all debate is nothing short of intellectual thuggery. Many of the proponents and supporters of ID are indeed, creationists, but most of them are like me. Regular attendees of the Church of the Big Bang, that have many questions and don't like the thug posted at the door to the classroom, be he Creationist or Darwinist.

One really, really has to go to that link and read the FULL account to get the full effect. The stunner was when he said the JUDGE suggested to the plaintiff's attorneys that they object, so he bring the cross-x to an end, because it had gone so far afield and, in the judges words: "it's not helping me."

Waaaaaaaa!

From the characterization of the questions the judge DID allow in, I get the impression the judge is making SURE this case isn't going to get overturned on appeal, for denying defendants their chance to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink, into evidence during cross exam.....

I also suspect the plaintiffs' attorneys sense victory, and they aren't bothering to object very much to this rambling incoherent cross-exam because 1) they know it isn't going to hurt their case, and 2) why give the defense a point on which to try to appeal a decision against them?

Wow...that is hilarious...so whole segments of the population are just idiots. They have no questions or thoughts which you condescend to respect, perhaps they are 4/5 of a human in your view...Taliban...whoa...heavy stuff, how about Nazi's( a bit overdone..Taliban, has a better ring, much more contemporary and, indeed, holding a creationist view is to be compared to clitoris removal and chopping off hands of petty thiefs, and the complete denail of civil rights to half of the population. Yeah, they deserve that and worse..How about Uber Taliban, that captures the historical connection we all constantly seek, and at the same time, gives it a 21st century feel. I like it. Uber Taliban....

I find it incredible, but on the other hand for Darwin to come along and close the door to all debate is nothing short of intellectual thuggery. Many of the proponents and supporters of ID are indeed, creationists, but most of them are like me.

Personally, I'm up in arms that they don't teach about fairies and gremlins in history class. There is absolutely no scientific proof that fairies and gremlins don't exist, and if they did, it would certainly explain many puzzling facts of history. I think this affront to we wee-people-ists is nothing short of intellectual thuggery.

No it DOES NOT! Your description is a Ferry boat on top of a Canoe. Darwinism is not a monolithic truth, impervious to challenge for all time. The qualities of ID are not the point, however, the point is do the citizens have any say over their institutions, namely their schools which they pay for. I really don't care if you believe Turtles on Tops of Turtles means something, or not, but I do care if you somehow justify stopping discussion of what I would call the eternal question because you have made up your mind. ID is on the right side of intellectual curiosity.

They have no questions or thoughts which you condescend to respect, perhaps they are 4/5 of a human in your view

Whereas, what ID has to say, is so utterly respectful and courteous toward the hundreds of thousands of biological scientists who slave away to expand the story of Darwinian evolution in concrete detail, after having spend a fortune and a good part of their lives becoming qualified to do so.

As I recall, we don't normally consult lay opinions about what is taught in science class, for the same reason we don't hire the deaf to teach music, or the illiterate to teach english. If we wanted children to graduate from school with their brains as mushy as they started, we wouldn't waste the money on schools. When laypersons want to use the color of law to countermand what scientists want to put in science textbooks, it is an affront no rhetoric in these threads comes remotely close to matching.

Brilliant....Actually they do teach about Fairies and Gremlins in History Class. Some of us haven't figured that out yet.

Uh huh. This theory finds many strong proponents amongst those who think eubonics, spanglish, and pigeon ought to be taught as an acceptable alternative to autocratic, elitist english spelling and grammar.

I'd suggest that at the heart of the civilization conspiracy is the notion that some ideas are better than others, and therefore, deserve primacy of consideration, and in that regard, the democratic spirit does not outrank scientific, or most any other form, of intellectual achievement.

They would have to go back into the creation science labs, sweep away all the cobwebs, raise the lightening rod, and do some science.

Or...

they could just have a little meeting, come up with a new and snazzy name for creationism/intelligent design, and spend the next few years lying about how it isn't about creationism, intelligent design, or religion, and we can all go through this again, and again, and again...

45
posted on 10/07/2005 11:21:08 AM PDT
by wyattearp
(The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)

That response can stand on it's pompous silly self! I will say that Science in this and many cases is not a house undivided nor is it a house untainted with the stench of politics. Your irrelevant analogies notwithstanding, ID wether there are the dreaded Creatists in their midsts or not, deserves airing. As I said before, free inquiry means exactly that(on a turtle) people are not disqualified by their religion. Those of you that think so, can find yourselves being prominently featured in all kinds of history books throughou time( a hint...your not the fairy...your the Gremlin!)

this cross examination is so absurd, so perfect an exemplar (even... charicature?) of the extreme edge of ID lunacy, that I am forced to consider the possibility that the IDiot's Counsel might have been bribed or planted by Darwin Central.

50
posted on 10/07/2005 11:33:50 AM PDT
by King Prout
(19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.